Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 30

March 30

Anime redirects to categories

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are redundant to directly linking to the category and have trivial edit histories. There are no possibilities for expansion, they disguise the category location and would be unlikely search terms for new users. (Re-nomination from 19 March when I forgot to tag.) mattbr 11:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cross-namespace redirects. JuJube 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Polish roulette → Russian roulette

The result of the debate was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As amusing as the original entry was, it should've been WP:BJAODNed at best, not redirected.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, complete nonsense. Gavia immer (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, actually. There are only a couple hundred Google hits [1], but they connect to links from the Washington Monthly, the Darwin Awards, the official New York state court reporters (dealing with People v. Chirse), several links referencing a film and a stage play by that name, the New York Times, the Bob Rivers show ... that's enough referencing for a standalone article, never mind a redirect. RGTraynor 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete RGTraynor, those references are by no means as authoritative as you make them seem. The Washington Monthly's use of the term is just a user-generated comment on a blog. If you click the Darwin Awards link from Google, you'll find that the article doesn't even have the phrase "Polish roulette"; it only showed up on the search results because pages linking to it contained the term. The People vs. Chirse link has just a single mention in a line of dialogue. There is not a single reliable reference that is exclusively devoted to "Polish roulette" as a main subject (unless you count urbandictionary). And even if something did have a lot of references proving that it is in fact a real word doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have an article about it. Just look at WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. --JianLi 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies; did I miss the part where this was an AfD discussion? I thought this was talking about a redirect. RGTraynor 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned AfD criteria because I was responding to your comment that there was "enough referencing for a standalone article, never mind a redirect." --JianLi 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is not clearly defined: there are a few examples of people using it to refer to a pistol roulette with 5 or 6 bullets, but also with no bullets at all ([2]). There was also a 1998 film with that title by Maria Zmarz-Koczanowicz, perhaps a Solomon solution is to write a stub on that, note cultural reference based on R. roulette and leave it at that?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as thinly veiled ethnic slur. Balcer 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because people may look for it. Abeg92contribs 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, the Darwin Award has at least one instances of Polish Roulette, also there is reference to it on Allexperts.com [3], of course, you can count the urban dictionary, if you'd like to. It probably doesn't deserve an article, but a redirect is very necessary. Wooyi 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

One (Rihanna album) → Good Girl Gone Bad

The result of the debate was Deleted. Wikipedia created misinformation from speculation shouldn't be kept. If it was an externally sourced, common misconception, that would be a different case. -- JLaTondre 18:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the album was never officially announced as One or reported as One in any reliable source (I think the rumour originated from Wikipedia itself, as the creation of the article predates the earliest mentions of One on the pages I could find on Google), so leaving the redirect around is sure to mislead editors into thinking this was the title of the album at some point. Extraordinary Machine 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Or, much more likely, it will be used by people who already thought that was the correct name of the album, who'll be redirected to the right article. Isn't that the chief purpose of redirects in the first place? It seems an outcome fifty times more likely than people hitting the links-to button, slapping their foreheads and exclaiming "That must have been the album name at one point!" RGTraynor 16:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The redirect should not perpetuate misinformation that arose from speculation. Additionally, the target does not even mention the redirect, which tells you something about the propriety of the redirect. --JianLi 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes → Armin Meiwes

The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors on the article have a 3-way dispute here.

  1. Delete.
  2. Keep the redirect.
  3. Keep the stub that existed before the redirect.

According to my understanding, I'd keep the redirect, but I think it should be discussed here. YechielMan 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the only problem is that Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes is not the same person as as Armin Meiwes. Armin Meiwes killed and ate Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes.
The problem is that Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes is mentioned in the article about Armin Meiwes, and thus if you click the link the page that opens is the one you are already on. I'm not bothered though. Maybe it would be best to revert to this version of Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernd_J%C3%BCrgen_Armando_Brandes&oldid=12333674. --Jackaranga 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Theres not enough to say about Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes to make sense as a separate article, but a redirect will keep people from recreating a stub and help them find the info they're looking for. —dgiestc 05:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But when you click the link you get sent back to the page you were already on, is that normal ? --Jackaranga 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only similar instance I know of is that Robert Frederick Glass redirects to the page for his victim, Sharon Lopatka DGG 03:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:BULLSHIT → Wikipedia:Complete bollocks

The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. Although Wikipedia is not censored, there's no need to use offensive language when good alternatives exist. Since this page is most often cited in AFD debates, it also sets a trap for incivility ("You called my article that?!"). YechielMan 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Can you show any circumstances where this was used uncivilly in a debate where linking Wikipedia:Complete bollocks would not also have been offensive? As is, I don't see how the redirect is much worse than the target. —dgiestc 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My reason for putting it up in the first place was that while "bollocks" is a term familiar to UK editors, it's completely over the head of most US editors, and we're not supposed to be logocentric here ... and let's face it: there is an awful lot on XfD debates that someone or other could construe as pejorative in some fashion or another, by the simple fact that we're taking someone's effort and saying by definition "This isn't suitable for Wikipedia." That aside, I'm bemused at the citation of an essay illustrating discredited reasons one should not use in XfD debates. The nomination would reinforce the impression that Language Police exist on Wikipedia, and that certain words are subject to censorship divorced from their actual use or meaning. If you believe an actionable violation of WP:CIVIL has occurred, pursue that. RGTraynor 18:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. I make the observation that RGTraynor is the only user who has had recourse to this essentially hidden redirect, with two exceptions out of the 20 or so appearances of it. In no case was it misinterpreted; in every case the article would have been deleted anyway. By the way, you forgot WP:FUC (and WP:FUCK). YechielMan 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it up, I've used it in XfD debates, it's been there for others to use or not as they choose, along with any other such WP/etcetera; it certainly would have been highly inappropriate to lobby in a campaign for its use, and if such a strong assertion had been used in a case where an article was not an obvious delete it'd certainly be a gross misuse of the term in either event. It's like using WP:HOAX; you'd better be damn sure before you pull it out. RGTraynor 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bullshit describes it perfectly. Not to be mean or anything, but most people who write bullshit are the same type who probably won't actually read any policy/guideline/essay, so having a single word summary in the shortcut is especially helpful :) --- RockMFR 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may seem a little WP:BITEy, but I think the use of it is appropriate as a redirect, particularly since it's actually redirecting to something called "complete bollocks". Arkyan • (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insofar as the target is legitimate, Keep. I don't think most American English speakers know what bollocks means, so this would be helpful.
  • Keep, for us stupid Americans. :-) Abeg92contribs 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or change to a soft redirect. I realise I'm going against the flow here, but I agree with the nominator that it could potentially be uncivil if used in a deletion debate. Perhaps a solution similar to that at WP:VAIN would be appropriate. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SHENANIGANS. This can be potentially misused the same way WP:BOLLOCKS can be misused. An uncivil comment will be discredited anyway, but these shortcuts portray the essay accurately. –Pomte 06:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Minnesota House of Representatives 2006-2007 Session → Minnesota House of Representatives 2007-2008 Session

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 2006-2007 session. There is a 2005-2006 session and a 2007-2008 session. Is currently a double-redirect I noticed when merging some pages. ZJH 10:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems that the sessions can only start on odd years and end on the next (even) year. But why, on their respective Wikipedia articles, are the Eighty-fourth Minnesota Legislature labeled as 2005—2007 and the Eighty-fifth Minnesota Legislature labeled as 2007—2009 if their sessions only cover two calendar years? This is probably correct, but it should be explained or clarified in the articles. --JianLi 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_30&oldid=1138574847"